New bus ran on "fart" gas

SFTPhotography

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,926
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30115137

The UK's first bus powered entirely by human and food waste has gone into service between Bristol and Bath.

The 40-seat "Bio-Bus" runs on biomethane gas generated through the treatment of sewage and food waste.

The eco-friendly vehicle can travel up to 300km (186 miles) on one tank of gas, which takes the annual waste of about five people to produce.

It is run by tour operator Bath Bus Company and will shuttle people between Bristol Airport and Bath city centre.

The biomethane gas is generated at Bristol sewage treatment works in Avonmouth, which is run by GENeco, a subsidiary of Wessex Water.

What a brilliant idea
 
The problem is ST4 you take the p1ss about so much, it's difficult to know when your serious or not.
 
right folks, we are aware that Steve has made his bed, but shall we rise above such gutter levels it and not make him lie in it too often. We are fully aware of the 'outrage' and are curbing it where necessary, so either join discussions, or just click away. If you are all so averse to these threads and DON'T post, they will die naturally and quickly.

Thanks muchly
 
ignoring the cobblers - its interesting technology in terms of dealing with peak oil etc but not really that eco freindly as burning methane still releases CO2
 
Yv said:
right folks, we are aware that Steve has made his bed, but shall we rise above such gutter levels it and not make him lie in it too often. We are fully aware of the 'outrage' and are curbing it where necessary, so either join discussions, or just click away. If you are all so averse to these threads and DON'T post, they will die naturally and quickly.

Thanks muchly
Click to expand...

Ironically there is no outrage, just a positive thread about a postive and innovative thing.

big soft moose said:
ignoring the cobblers - its interesting technology in terms of dealing with peak oil etc but not really that eco freindly as burning methane still releases CO2
Click to expand...

Indeed it does release CO2, but what would happen to the gases anyway. CH4 is 10x as powereful a greenhouse gas as CO2 but it breaks down more easily. Perhaps with some carbon capture (ie tree planting) you can offset it.

Burning methane also I believe produces much less NOx and better still much less PM10s and PM2.5's that you get from diesel and petrol engines. Not as clean as electric but compared to shale gas, oil extraction, coal buring for electricity this has to be in net terms a winner.
 
Last edited:
Hippy nonsense.
 
ST4 said:
Indeed it does release CO2, but what would happen to the gases anyway.
Click to expand...

The important thing about CO2 release is the time between the CO2 being captured and released.

i.e. If you burn oil or coal which was created millions of years ago, the CO2 you produce is effectively new as you are adding it to what is there already.

If you grow a crop of fast growing wood such as Hazel and burn that, the CO2 you release was taken by the plant to aid its growth a year or two ago so the net effect is zero.

The same will be true of most materials used to produce biomethane.


Steve.
 
this is true - but if you capture the CO2 and don't release it - be fore example locking it up as a carbonate compound during sewage treatment then the net effect is negative which is what is actually needed in terms of addressing the CO2 issue

Admitedly if CH4 is being generated anyway (as with some landfil) then capturing it and using it as fuel is preferable to letting it escape to the atmosphere because CH4 is about 20 times worse as a greenhouse gas than Co2
 
Don't a lot of industrial places burn off excess methane. This seems a better use for it.

I totally get Steve Smiths point. Technically oil is renewable. It just takes a few billion years to renew it and we've burned off what's taken millions of not billions of years to generate in decades.

This however is burning off what we produce naturally and methanes a cleaner burn than diesel or petrol fractions from oil in terms of NOx plus PM10s and PM2.5s. Of all the things that come out an exhaust CO2 is about the least harmful at ground level.
 
ST4 said:
Don't a lot of industrial places burn off excess methane. This seems a better use for it.
Click to expand...

I believe a number of sewage plants are using gas engines to drive electrical generator sets pushing power into the National grid. This probably is a more efficient way of using the gas than the bus.
 
Let's not get too carried away with how great this is, since it isn't straight biomethane and the exact reduction in CO2 is variable according to the link. You'd also need to explore how the impurities are removed and what happens to them. :thinking:

  • To power a vehicle, the biogas undergoes "upgrading", where carbon dioxide is removed and propane added
  • Impurities are removed to produce virtually odour free emissions
  • Compared to conventional diesel vehicles, up to 30% less carbon dioxide is emitted
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
huffy said:
I believe a number of sewage plants are using gas engines to drive electrical generator sets pushing power into the National grid. This probably is a more efficient way of using the gas than the bus.
Click to expand...

A very good point as a gas propelled vehicle might be 20-40% efficient with the rest of the energy wasted as heat. An electric bus using power generated in the grid from burnt gas is nearer 70 - 90% efficient.
 
Peter B said:
Let's not get too carried away with how great this is, since it isn't straight biomethane and the exact reduction in CO2 is variable according to the link. You'd also need to explore how the impurities are removed and what happens to them. :thinking:

  • To power a vehicle, the biogas undergoes "upgrading", where carbon dioxide is removed and propane added
  • Impurities are removed to produce virtually odour free emissions
  • Compared to conventional diesel vehicles, up to 30% less carbon dioxide is emitted
Click to expand...
All good points but what of NOx Ozone, Particulates from oil based fuels. It's got to be cleaner than that. I'm thinking more air quality pollution rather than greenhouse gases.

Consider also the way oil is extracted. Can the production of this be worse.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
The important thing about CO2 release is the time between the CO2 being captured and released.

i.e. If you burn oil or coal which was created millions of years ago, the CO2 you produce is effectively new as you are adding it to what is there already.

If you grow a crop of fast growing wood such as Hazel and burn that, the CO2 you release was taken by the plant to aid its growth a year or two ago so the net effect is zero.

The same will be true of most materials used to produce biomethane.


Steve.
Click to expand...

So this is why wood burning stoves, when using quickly replaceable logs are considered more environmentally friendly than other forms of heating that either directly or indirectly burn fossil fuels I guess.

ST4 said:
Ironically there is no outrage, just a positive thread about a postive and innovative thing.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was in this thread and exactly why I used this one to make the point.
 
Yv said:
So this is why wood burning stoves, when using quickly replaceable logs are considered more environmentally friendly than other forms of heating that either directly or indirectly burn fossil fuels I guess.



I didn't say there was in this thread and exactly why I used this one to make the point.
Click to expand...

Essentially, so long as you replace the wood with what you have burned then its carbon neutral. If all we ever did was burn wood and replace that with new trees that captured co2 and so on so forth, the worlds CO2 equilibrium would be balanced. The current situation is we are burning what has taken millions, if not billions of years to generated within say a few decades. If we burnt fossil fuels at the rate they were created we'd be in equilibrium in terms of supply, and much more so in terms of CO2 release.
 
ST4 said:
Essentially, so long as you replace the wood with what you have burned then its carbon neutral. If all we ever did was burn wood and replace that with new trees that captured co2 and so on so forth, the worlds CO2 equilibrium would be balanced. The current situation is we are burning what has taken millions, if not billions of years to generated within say a few decades. If we burnt fossil fuels at the rate they were created we'd be in equilibrium in terms of supply, and much more so in terms of CO2 release.
Click to expand...

yep, i knew the 2nd part, was just being dumb and hadn't worked out the first bit DOH! We live in leafy suburban London and every night you can smell 'bonfires' - except of course it is mainly wood burning stoves that everyone round here has had fitted. I am almost paranoid about fire, yet its a smell I love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
huffy said:
I believe a number of sewage plants are using gas engines to drive electrical generator sets pushing power into the National grid. This probably is a more efficient way of using the gas than the bus.
Click to expand...

E generator is indeed the better way forward, but the bus is probably more suited for the publicity campaign as a visual and obvious proof for the unaware general public.

ST4 said:
All good points but what of NOx Ozone, Particulates from oil based fuels. It's got to be cleaner than that. I'm thinking more air quality pollution rather than greenhouse gases.

Consider also the way oil is extracted. Can the production of this be worse.
Click to expand...

NOx, O3 and particulates result from the engine burning parameters and conditions. The first 2 are produced due to excessively high temperatures and certain metal components that act as catalyst for nitrogen oxidation, etc. Particulates are emitted due to incomplete combustion. Burning of gas would solve the latter for sure, however the former could be questionable in high pressure and high temperature engines.

ST4 said:
Essentially, so long as you replace the wood with what you have burned then its carbon neutral. If all we ever did was burn wood and replace that with new trees that captured co2 and so on so forth, the worlds CO2 equilibrium would be balanced. The current situation is we are burning what has taken millions, if not billions of years to generated within say a few decades. If we burnt fossil fuels at the rate they were created we'd be in equilibrium in terms of supply, and much more so in terms of CO2 release.
Click to expand...

Consider the particulate matter emitted burning wood or coal (solid fuels). Our furnaces are incredibly inefficient compared to diesel or gas technology and should be put on complete halt until they are reoptimised and carbon capture technology can be applied.

Or just go all nuclear + renewables / electric transport and be happy.
 
daugirdas said:
E generator is indeed the better way forward, but the bus is probably more suited for the publicity campaign as a visual and obvious proof for the unaware general public.



NOx, O3 and particulates result from the engine burning parameters and conditions. The first 2 are produced due to excessively high temperatures and certain metal components that act as catalyst for nitrogen oxidation, etc. Particulates are emitted due to incomplete combustion. Burning of gas would solve the latter for sure, however the former could be questionable in high pressure and high temperature engines.



Consider the particulate matter emitted burning wood or coal (solid fuels). Our furnaces are incredibly inefficient compared to diesel or gas technology and should be put on complete halt until they are reoptimised and carbon capture technology can be applied.

Or just go all nuclear + renewables / electric transport and be happy.
Click to expand...

All good points. Burning gas in an ICE will release less CO2 and less particulates. I concede the NOx and O3 would still be present but I assume in reduced quantities as combustion should hopefully be more complete.

Burning coal/wood will cause localised pollution but in the case of wood no net climate change as it's a renewable source that you can Carbon offset. The key is to differentiate between air quality pollution and greenhouse gases.

Nuclear to me is really the only long term electricity generation solution given how little uranium you need to make so much power.
 
I wonder if I could heat my bungalow and run my car from the contents of my septic tank, just a thought.:thinking:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I wonder if I could heat my bungalow and run my car from the contents of my septic tank, just a thought.
Click to expand...

In the mid 70's there was a local news item that showed a farmer somewhere in Hampshire who was running his car on what came from the north end of south bound pigs. I presume, can't remember the details that it was the gas from that, but how he converted that and how efficient it was I have no idea.
 
Bernie174 said:
In the mid 70's there was a local news item that showed a farmer somewhere in Hampshire who was running his car on what came from the north end of south bound pigs. I presume, can't remember the details that it was the gas from that, but how he converted that and how efficient it was I have no idea.
Click to expand...

IIRC in terms of efficiency a gas powered vehicle over a petrol one will be quieter, slightly less powerful and in terms of mpg (it's compressed and in liquid form) do a few less.

The gas needs compressed I'm sure
 
Can you convert a 4L biturbo V8 to gas and would it hold up against diesel in terms of mpg and the green credentials? I am not too sure. This is probably what electricity companies should be doing, and electric motors running the wheels.

I am pretty sure anything under 2L in average car would feel dreadful, as most such petrol engines do anyway. Also LPG and equivalent are very hazardous and present a major fire or explosion risk. Diesel is barely flammable under ambient conditions and even Li-ION batteries can be fail proofed fairly well in comparison.
 
daugirdas said:
Can you convert a 4L biturbo V8 to gas and would it hold up against diesel in terms of mpg and the green credentials? I am not too sure. This is probably what electricity companies should be doing, and electric motors running the wheels.

I am pretty sure anything under 2L in average car would feel dreadful, as most such petrol engines do anyway. Also LPG and equivalent are very hazardous and present a major fire or explosion risk. Diesel is barely flammable under ambient conditions and even Li-ION batteries can be fail proofed fairly well in comparison.
Click to expand...

Easily. It'll be a bit less powerful and a bit quieter and in terms of gallons of fuel used it will use more. But it'll be exposive performance wise.

Re risk. I don't see it. A robustly engineered tank and it'll be fine.

2litre petrols are fine. Especially of you pop a big turbo on :)
 
Carlh said:
First bus to run on s*** - not impressed. What about Cameron's or Milliband's election tourbuses?
Click to expand...

Or any politicians vehicle come to that.
 
Pretty sure that back in the late '30s and early '40s there were quite a few vehicles that ran on gas - great big bags on roofracks. Not sure which gas was used but seem to remember Dad talking about pig scat power.
 
Cheers for that link, Rob. However, they all seem to be "producer" gas powered and I'm pretty sure Dad talked about pig s#!t power. Unfortunately he's no longer available to answer questions.
 
"Cheers for that link, Rob. However, they all seem to be "producer" gas powered and I'm pretty sure Dad talked about pig s#!t power. Unfortunately he's no longer available to answer questions."

The principle is the same, just a different gas.
 
Last edited:
Almost worth having a big bag of fermenting piggypoop on a roofrack in the hope that some lowlife slashed it to steal the contents!
 
If this bus breaks down ever, is it likely to be because something has hit the fan..?
 
Nod said:
Pretty sure that back in the late '30s and early '40s there were quite a few vehicles that ran on gas - great big bags on roofracks. Not sure which gas was used but seem to remember Dad talking about pig scat power.
Click to expand...

A couple of years ago there was a TV programme showing life in WW II Britain and how things were made, etc. They had an ambulance which was converted to run on coal gas.

However, rather than just put the gas in a bag, this one had a furnace which looked like a metal dustbin bolted to the front which heated up coal to produce its own gas in situ.


Steve.
 
Didn't they use domestic house gas in the war or was that just Dad's Army?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top